yougile_create_string_sticker

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 'name' field tip, not disclosing side effects or return behavior. Since annotations cover safety profile, the description does not need to replicate that, but it also doesn't enrich it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second delivers a critical parameter tip. Every word earns its place, and the essential information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple create operation with only two parameters, the description combined with the schema and annotations is largely complete. It explains the action, the key parameter constraint, and the required fields. It omits return behavior, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (name and projectId) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics by explicitly instructing to use 'name' not 'title', preventing a likely naming mistake that the schema does not address.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a string sticker' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task or create_board. The additional note about the 'name' field reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'Use name field (not title)', which addresses parameter naming but does not explain when to choose this over create_sprint_sticker or other creation tools. The usage context is entirely implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.